CNSNews.com) – A top constitutional law professor who served as a surrogate for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama told CNSNews.com that he would like to see “marriage” replaced in the legal sense with a neutral “civil license.”

“As awkward as it may be, I think the way to untie the state from this problem is to create a new terminology that they would apply to everyone--straight or gay-call it a ‘civil license,’ said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University and author of “Can a Catholic Support Him?’

“The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” Kmiec said.

Kmiec said that one of the things that motivated the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, “was a genuine concern on the part of religious believers--including myself--that the previous California ruling was not addressing what that would mean for religious practice.”

“After the state of California acknowledged same-sex marriage, would that mean, for example, that churches like the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, which don’t acknowledge those relationships as a marriage by virtue of their scriptural and theological teaching--would they be subject to penalty? Would they lose public benefits? Would they be subject to lawsuits based upon some theory of discrimination?”

Kmiec said his idea would address those questions.

“One of the possible outcomes that would be good in this case, would be if the state got out of the marriage business, did their licensing under a different name--which, of course, would satisfy the state’s interests for purposes of distribution of taxation and property, but then the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community.

Now if he could just take this idea to its logical conclusion: getting the State out of sexual relationships entirely. Leave sexual status markers to the church (or whatever) and let the State brood about common property issues.

CNS (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48652)

aerojarod

05-27-2009, 01:10 PM

Now if he could just take this idea to its logical conclusion: getting the State out of sexual relationships entirely. Leave sexual status markers to the church (or whatever) and let the State brood about common property issues.

CNS (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48652)

Amen, sister.

Nothing romantic or sexy about a marriage certificates or filing your taxes as a joint couple anyway.

Although I do get aroused at the DMV. :D

Gingersnap

05-27-2009, 01:33 PM

Amen, sister.

Nothing romantic or sexy about a marriage certificates or filing your taxes as a joint couple anyway.

Although I do get aroused at the DMV. :D

I think we all do.

wilbur

05-27-2009, 02:09 PM

Unfortunately, this is far too sensible... I don't see it happening.

stsinner

05-27-2009, 02:28 PM

Unfortunately, this is far too sensible... I don't see it happening.

It's not sensible at all. It's disgusting. It legally equates homosexuals and Catholics or other non-sodomy practicing people who have an actual natural relationship the way God intended. It's a cop-out because they want so badly to embrace this debauchery, but the people have spoken.

What will happen if they do this nonsense is that the Justices of the Peace will perform these bogus ceremonies and them some homosexuals will sue the Catholic church to get them to stop performing their actual marriages, claiming discrimination and make every have this silly, state sanctioned union...

wilbur

05-27-2009, 02:50 PM

It's not sensible at all. It's disgusting. It legally equates homosexuals and Catholics or other non-sodomy practicing people who have an actual natural relationship the way God intended. It's a cop-out because they want so badly to embrace this debauchery, but the people have spoken.

What will happen if they do this nonsense is that the Justices of the Peace will perform these bogus ceremonies and them some homosexuals will sue the Catholic church to get them to stop performing their actual marriages, claiming discrimination and make every have this silly, state sanctioned union...

So lets get this straight... say we remove the term marriage from the constitution and regulation and replace it with civil licensing. You think that this will cause homosexuals to sue the church to stop them performing private functions, that really have no legal or civil standing anymore? At this point, the attendees who work at the asylum where you are obviously kept, need to adjust your meds to account for this level of crazy... they also need to adjust your wrist straps you can't escape and type anything else so ridiculous on a computer ever again.

After such a change, the ceremony of marriage within the church would be no different than holy communion. A completely private and unregulated function to be carried out as a private institution sees fit.

As it is, the church can actually withold the Eucharist during communion, from all sorts of people... homosexuals, abortionists, even divorcees should they feel like it... I'm sure this offends many people. I wonder why the church hasn't been successfully sued for withholding communion? Because it can't be done.

stsinner

05-27-2009, 02:58 PM

So lets get this straight... say we remove the term marriage from the constitution and regulation and replace it with civil licensing. You think that this will cause homosexuals to sue the church to stop them performing private functions, that really have no legal or civil standing? At this point, the attendees who work at the asylum where you are obviously kept, need to adjust your meds to account for this level of crazy... they also need to adjust your wrist straps you can't escape and type anything else so ridiculous on a computer ever again.

After such a change, the ceremony of marriage within the church would be no different than holy communion. A completely private and unregulated function to be carried out as a private institution sees fit.

As it is, the church can actually withold the Eucharist during communion, from all sorts of people... homosexuals, abortionists, even divorcees should they feel like it... I'm sure this offends many people. I wonder why the church hasn't been successfully sued for withholding communion? Because it can't be done.

All your silly insults aside, nobody thought that homosexuals would sue for "marriage" once they were given civil unions and all the rights and protections of otherwise married couples, but they are so hell-bent on forcing people to approve of their sick lifestyle choice that civil unions wasn't good enough because it's different.. Well, being a homosexual is different, so it's fitting. You talk about communion like there's a non-church communion that non-church members are getting..etc.. The only way your argument about the Eucharist would be valid is if Communion was an act also performed outside the church with the same name.. Marriage is marriage, both in the church and out, and I'm sure that if homosexuals were successful in having the name outside the church changed to civil license but the Catholics kept theirs called marriage, they'd say they were just thrown a bone and want the Catholics to go along because it's still different and not equal.

Actually, now that I think about it, this may be a very good idea!! This could increase our church membership 10 fold as more and more people would be disgusted at the thought of being joined in the same union ceremony as homosexuals and would desire actual marriage. They have to join the church to be married, and that would be a good thing! After all, in EVER INSTANCE where homosexual marriage has been put to a ballot vote, it's been defeated soundly because the people don't want the unions to be equated as the same thing. People of the same sex cannot get married.
Sure, you'll say, "Yes they can! The courts in blah blah states have said so..." Well, the courts in the states also tell you that they're looking out for your safety when they give you a ticket for not wearing your seat belt while driving in a steel cage with airbags but say it's perfectly fine to fly down the highway at 65 MPH on a motorcycle with only a helmet on.. The courts aren't right just because they make a ruling.

Homosexuals don't act rational, anyway, trying to force their lifestyle on the community at large and throwing it in our faces at every turn, so to think that they won't attack the church for continuing to perform marriages is not thought that is well informed.

wilbur

05-27-2009, 03:12 PM

All your silly insults aside, nobody thought that homosexuals would sue for "marriage" once they were given civil unions and all the rights and protections of otherwise married couples, but they are so hell-bent on forcing people to approve of their sick lifestyle choice that civil unions wasn't good enough because it's different..

They don't have the same rights and protections. Marriage is a federally recognized institution, that comes with over a thousand federally granted incentives and legal protections. Claiming that homosexuals get the same rights under civil unions is incontestably false. If marriage had no legal standing, it would not come with any rights and protections... hence, no one could claim that they were deprived of anything by not being able to take part in a church marriage ceremony.

Well, being a homosexual is different, so it's fitting. You talk about communion like there's a non-church communion that non-church members are getting..etc.. The only way your argument about the Eucharist would be valid is if Communion was an act also performed outside the church with the same name..
Marriage is marriage, both in the church and out, and I'm sure that if homosexuals were successful in having the name outside the church changed to civil license but the Catholics kept theirs called marriage, they'd say they were just thrown a bone and want the Catholics to go along because it's still different and not equal.

Marriage as an unregulated function of a private institution would mean that homosexuals could marry to their hearts content, by any institution that would perform it. It just wouldn't have any legal standing, nor would it be related to Catholic marriage.

I could conceivably set up a church tomorrow, complete with its own eucharist ceremony where we eat plates of 'transubstantiated' pasta to receive the grace of the flying spaghetti monster. What I can't do, is then sue the Catholic church, or any other Christian church, to make the stop serving the Eucharist.. nor could they sue me.

stsinner

05-27-2009, 03:43 PM

They don't have the same rights and protections. Marriage is a federally recognized institution, that comes with over a thousand federally granted incentives and legal protections. Claiming that homosexuals get the same rights under civil unions is incontestably false. If marriage had no legal standing, it would not come with any rights and protections... hence, no one could claim that they were deprived of anything by not being able to take part in a church marriage ceremony.

Marriage as an unregulated function of a private institution would mean that homosexuals could marry to their hearts content, by any institution that would perform it. It just wouldn't have any legal standing, nor would it be related to Catholic marriage.

I could conceivably set up a church tomorrow, complete with its own eucharist ceremony where we eat plates of 'transubstantiated' pasta to receive the grace of the flying spaghetti monster. What I can't do, is then sue the Catholic church, or any other Christian church, to make the stop serving the Eucharist.. nor could they sue me.

You're right. You're absolutely correct! I've been served.

Gingersnap

05-27-2009, 04:56 PM

It makes more sense (common sense) to move to a purely legal/financial union of two people who have a relationship of any kind.

For traditional believers (in any religion) marriage is a spiritual yoking of a man and woman until death (at the very least) and it is a vocation and sacrament for many. The contemporary secular attitude toward marriage is very different. It's a potentially long-term arrangement that involves financial obligations but it can be dissolved by either partner for no apparent reason at any time. That's pretty crazy from a religious point of view.

It's time now to reserve the status and benefits of marriage to people who regard it seriously and let everybody else have their various pro-tem arrangements. Take sex of it altogether and let any couple form a legal kinship contract including brothers and sisters, best friends, or next door neighbors. Make them all create prenuptial agreements (we'll need a new word) and limit the "unions" to three years. Both parties have to agree to an updated pre-nup before the next three year period.

Religious people who take their vows seriously shouldn't care about the legal fuss. I made vows before God and my husband - not the State of Colorado.

FlaGator

05-27-2009, 05:22 PM

So lets get this straight... say we remove the term marriage from the constitution and regulation and replace it with civil licensing. You think that this will cause homosexuals to sue the church to stop them performing private functions, that really have no legal or civil standing anymore? At this point, the attendees who work at the asylum where you are obviously kept, need to adjust your meds to account for this level of crazy... they also need to adjust your wrist straps you can't escape and type anything else so ridiculous on a computer ever again.

After such a change, the ceremony of marriage within the church would be no different than holy communion. A completely private and unregulated function to be carried out as a private institution sees fit.

As it is, the church can actually withold the Eucharist during communion, from all sorts of people... homosexuals, abortionists, even divorcees should they feel like it... I'm sure this offends many people. I wonder why the church hasn't been successfully sued for withholding communion? Because it can't be done.

But it will be done in the case of same sex marriages because with the passage of the new hate crimes act it will become a crime to refuse to perform the ceremony on the basis that it is discrimination against homosexuals. Much like the fair housing act allows homosexuals to sue if they are denied an apartment or home because of their sexual orientation. Much like they sue businesses if they are refused work because of their sexual desires. Much like they they sue anyone who views their life style as immoral. Much like they filed suit to over turn prop 8 on the grounds that the process to amend the California state constitution was illegal when they had no problem with the legality of the process when it was working in their favor.

FlaGator

05-27-2009, 05:27 PM

They don't have the same rights and protections. Marriage is a federally recognized institution, that comes with over a thousand federally granted incentives and legal protections. Claiming that homosexuals get the same rights under civil unions is incontestably false. If marriage had no legal standing, it would not come with any rights and protections... hence, no one could claim that they were deprived of anything by not being able to take part in a church marriage ceremony.

Marriage as an unregulated function of a private institution would mean that homosexuals could marry to their hearts content, by any institution that would perform it. It just wouldn't have any legal standing, nor would it be related to Catholic marriage.

I could conceivably set up a church tomorrow, complete with its own eucharist ceremony where we eat plates of 'transubstantiated' pasta to receive the grace of the flying spaghetti monster. What I can't do, is then sue the Catholic church, or any other Christian church, to make the stop serving the Eucharist.. nor could they sue me.

They have exactly the same provisions as I do.

I'm going to ask you nicely to stop disrespecting my Christian beliefs. You can argue against them all you want but don't make another remark like the one I highlighted. And before you give me a big load of crap asa reply, we both know what you meant when you wrote it.

Gingersnap

05-27-2009, 06:10 PM

And now back to our real topic of civil unions and domestic partnerships. ;)

Odysseus

05-28-2009, 06:08 PM

And now back to our real topic of civil unions and domestic partnerships. ;)

Okay, then let's go back to first principles. What is a marriage? What is the purpose of marriage, and what are the obligations of the state with regard to marriage? These are the critical questions, because marriage as an institution predates every government currently in existence, and because of that, it has rules and obligations which precede, and may take precedence over, the powers of the state.

Gingersnap

05-28-2009, 06:23 PM

Okay, then let's go back to first principles. What is a marriage? What is the purpose of marriage, and what are the obligations of the state with regard to marriage? These are the critical questions, because marriage as an institution predates every government currently in existence, and because of that, it has rules and obligations which precede, and may take precedence over, the powers of the state.

Marriage is primarily for the purpose of creating and raising the biological children of two opposite-sexed heterosexuals. ;)

FlaGator

05-28-2009, 06:46 PM

Marriage is primarily for the purpose of creating and raising the biological children of two opposite-sexed heterosexuals. ;)

I thought the primary purpose of marriage was to keep the bank accounts of attorneys' who specialize in family law in the black... with lots of zeros to the right of every value.

Odysseus

05-28-2009, 10:40 PM

Marriage is primarily for the purpose of creating and raising the biological children of two opposite-sexed heterosexuals. ;)
Okay, but back to first principles. How does marriage serve the purpose of creating and raising children in a way that unmarried singles or other groupings do not? This is a critical issue, since gay couples are inherently sterile without the intervention of an outside agency and must contract out at least one part of reproduction.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to go all Socratic on this...

I thought the primary purpose of marriage was to keep the bank accounts of attorneys' who specialize in family law in the black... with lots of zeros to the right of every value.
Only since Henry VIII. :D

Gingersnap

05-28-2009, 11:44 PM

Okay, but back to first principles. How does marriage serve the purpose of creating and raising children in a way that unmarried singles or other groupings do not? This is a critical issue, since gay couples are inherently sterile without the intervention of an outside agency and must contract out at least one part of reproduction.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to go all Socratic on this...

Only since Henry VIII. :D

Human children are the most retarded offspring on the planet. Not only do their enormous heads make childbearing a risky business for women but their total inability to care for themselves for years puts a huge burden on mothers. By supporting fathers' claim to kinship through monogamy, an alliance with a monogamous mother ensures descent (for the man) and security (for the woman) through the cooperative efforts of raising children.

No woman alone can raise a child as successfully (for both her her and the child) as a woman in a congenial sexual/economic arrangement with the child's father. Many hands make light work and two adults are better equipped to raise a child than one. Biological kinship promotes physical attention and caring in a way that non-biological caring does not. A very significant number of severe child abuse cases are the result of an unrelated man abusing his female lover's children.

AlmostThere

05-29-2009, 12:07 AM

Human children are the most retarded offspring on the planet.

Poor choice of words. There are other species where the offspring is just as dependent right after birth but are independent much sooner. But if the time it takes for independence along with their natural life expectancy is compared to humans, I wonder if there is really that big of a difference.

A joey (kangaroo/marsupial) is far more vulnerable at birth than any human baby.

Rebel Yell

05-29-2009, 12:32 PM

Human children are the most retarded offspring on the planet.

And for most, it's all downhill from there.

Gingersnap

05-29-2009, 02:12 PM

Poor choice of words. There are other species where the offspring is just as dependent right after birth but are independent much sooner. But if the time it takes for independence along with their natural life expectancy is compared to humans, I wonder if there is really that big of a difference.

A joey (kangaroo/marsupial) is far more vulnerable at birth than any human baby.

The terms of this particular discussion are limited to human beings only. Animals don't form societal institutions that have broad legal and social effects. ;)